


Is One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter?

by Cerridwen



Category: Star Trek: Alternate Original Series (Movies)
Genre: Gen, Inspired by a Movie, Meta
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2015-01-10
Updated: 2015-01-10
Packaged: 2018-03-07 00:17:57
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 2,999
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/3153680
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Cerridwen/pseuds/Cerridwen
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>Is "One Man's Terrorist another Man's Freedom Fighter?" Does Khan fit the legal definition of terrorist as he is so often called? The debate still rages and this meta is my contribution to that debate</p>
            </blockquote>





	Is One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter?

**Author's Note:**

> IMPORTANT NOTE! Due to the Human Rights Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) changing their web pages I've had to update my links and make a few minor changes in the body of my texts because my sources were no longer accurate. If anyone finds any discrepancies please let me know. Thank you.
> 
> I want to thank the lovely BotanyCameos and Starflight1701 and all the other writers out there who continually give me pause to stop and think about all the issues that inspired this meta.
> 
> Second Note: I am revising this work in regards to Khan's attack on the London archive due to further viewing of the movie and dialogue with other meta writers. I feel that these changes make a better explanation of Khan's actions and motivations here.
> 
> Third note: I finally got the pictures to work!

In all the interviews and articles leading up to the movies’ release John Harrison is always described as a terrorist. After the big reveal of his true identity as Khan this label is still applied to him. But if we were to hold Khan accountable to the real world’s legal system, would this accusation hold? If it does not, does that automatically mean that the reverse must be true about him, that instead of being the villain he is the hero? The old saying of that “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” is an excellent illustration of the issue I’m debating here and it is one that crops up in the Star Trek universe repeatedly. (1)

In order to determine whether Khan fits the label of terrorist we first need to establish just what the legal definition of a terrorist is. That’s easier said than done due to the fact that the international community has been unable to come to an agreement on just what constitutes an act of terrorism. Therefore I will use the definitions of the United Kingdom and the United States as these were where the three attacks in the movie took place.

The United Kingdom definition of terrorism is:  
_The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes:_  
_• serious violence against a person;_  
_• serious damage to a property;_  
_• a threat to a person's life;_  
_• a serious risk to the health and safety of the public; or_  
_• serious interference with or disruption to an electronic system.(2)_

The definition according to the US is:  
_"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:_  
_• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;_  
_• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and_  
_• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. (3)_

Despite the differences in wording there are similarities between the two. There has to be a serious threat to human life and there must be the intention of influencing the government of intimidating the public.  
  
Bearing this in mind let’s take a look at the three attacks that Khan leveled against Star Fleet.

The bombing of the Kelvin Achieve was in fact aimed at the Section 31 base concealed underneath it. This means that the target was a military one and not civilian. In addition, as I have noted in a previous Meta the probability of civilian casualties in this bombing are quite low due to the size of the explosion and the actual number of people killed.  
A question also arises of why this particular Section 31 base? Given the resources that Section 31 commanded, the London base can’t have been their only base on Earth. As Kirk himself points out later at the Daystrom Conference, if Khan seriously wanted to damage Star Fleet or the Federation he had a wide choice up to and including Star Fleet Headquarters and the Academy (I’ll be returning to this point later). The answer to why London lays in the torpedoes that Khan designed.

In this screenshot we can see the torpedoes in the background behind Harewood.

Now we know that Khan believed that these were the torpedoes holding his family. Marcus and Section 31 already had the plans for the torpedoes stored on their computers so bombing that one facility wouldn’t have destroyed Section 31’s ability to make more of them. Nor was it an attack on Marcus himself. He wasn’t even in London at the time of the bombing. This leaves the rescue of Khan’s crew as the only possible motivation for Khan.

There was an undeniable threat to human in life in the bombing, 42 people died, although I still stand by my assessment that Khan ensured there would be no civilian casualties. That leaves the question of “Did Khan intend to influence the government or intimidate the public?”

We do know that Thomas Harewood sent a message to Admiral Marcus letting him know that Khan was compelling him to do this by making the saving of his daughter’s life the price of Harewood’s obedience. However we do not know in the movie itself just what was in that message. There is a deleted scene in the extras but all that tells us is that Khan’s message to Marcus states that Marcus would know why he did this. But no demands were made to the Federation council; no threats were made to the public. In the real world when a terrorist group makes an attack they will issue a statement to the media claiming responsibility. Khan did none of these things. So while there was a mitigated threat to human life, there was no attempt to influence the government or intimidate the public. Nor was Khan motivated by any political, religious, racial or ideological cause. He simply wanted to save his people. By the definition of the real world United Kingdom of our time this is not a terrorist attack.

In the second of Khan’s attacks, where he opens fire on the Star Fleet officers it cannot be denied that all of the people there, though military and not civilian, were unarmed and had no warning so there is a definite threat to human life and an argument can be made that this is an assassination attempt. However that still leaves the question of “How was Khan attempting to affect the conduct of the government”? If his goal was to eliminate all of Star Fleet’s high command then he choose an extremely inefficient way to do it. For a man of Khan’s intelligence and skills it would have been a simple matter to destroy everyone in the room via torpedo or even simpler, to destroy the entire building with another bomb as he did in London. Since he was able to get close enough to hover outside the room via jumpship and fire into it multiple times before the security team came running in, it would be reasonable to conclude that the building security was extremely lax to say the least. It was certainly much less secure then the Section 31 base in London. Nor can any attack on Star Fleet in and of itself be labelled a terrorist attack because if that were the case then any nation or group such as the Klingon or the Romulans would have be to be written off as terrorists. It is true that the many Star Fleet web sites define Star Fleet’s role in the Federation as “ _the advancement of Federation knowledge about the galaxy and its inhabitants, the advancement of Federation science and technology, the military defense of the Federation, and the practice of Federation diplomacy.” (4)_ Therefore an argument could be put forth that by attacking Star Fleet Khan was attempting to affect the conduct of the Federation government but again if so, why didn’t he issue demands or make a statement claiming responsibility for the attack? As previously noted this is how terrorist groups in the real world attempt to manipulate countries and governments. From what can be seen in the movie Khan has no interaction or contact with the governing body of the Federation what so ever nor does he make the public aware that he is behind the attacks or why. Therefore by the definition of the real world United States of our time this is not a terrorist attack.

The final attack is Khan’s attempted Kamikaze attack on Star Fleet headquarters. This is in my personal opinion where he comes closest to the line of what defines a terrorist attack. Not only because of the horrifically high numbers of civilian casualties but also because he was attempting to take out a large chunk of Star Fleet command. Once again an argument could be made that this qualifies as _“to appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction.”_ What stops it from going over that line for me is the question of motive. Once again Khan gives no thought to the actual government of the Federation. He simply wants to take down as many of his enemies with him into death. His goal was not the city of San Francisco itself but rather Star Fleet Headquarters. He missed his intended military target and hit the civilian one. Once again there was no attempt at coercion or intimidation.

Plus his state of mind at the time must be taken into account. As has been noted on other metas (I refer you to the wonderful BotanyCameos Tumblr site (5) for this), Khan had just been forced to watch what he had been tricked into believing was not only the murder of his entire family but also the genocide of his entire people. If anyone has any doubts about how that can emotional compromise someone, just take a look at Spock’s behaviour during the first of the reboot movies.

Based on his motivations and his actions, none of Khan’s attacks on Star Fleet fit the definition of terrorism according to the real world legal code of the countries they occurred in. So he`s not a terrorist. But does that automatically mean he`s freedom fighter?

If Khan is a freedom fighter then who is he trying to free? He believed all his people were dead when he attacked Star Fleet. Was he fighting for his own freedom? He certainly knew that Marcus would never stop hunting him until either Khan was dead or Marcus was. But the extremes he went to, especially in his final strike on Star Fleet headquarters goes far beyond simple self-defence. This was clearly retribution for what Khan believed was murder. He said as much himself in the brig of the Enterprise:

“ _I had ever reason to suspect that Marcus had killed every single one of the people I hold most dear. So I responded in kind.”_

Khan was not trying secure his or anyone else’s freedom. So we cannot call him a freedom fighter. He did kill people without warning or giving them a chance to defend themselves and he did so with pre-meditation. I don’t know of any real world legal system that would not rule this as murder except for one thing. That exception is the issue of slavery.

The United Nations has defined in slavery as _(emphasis added):_

"Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised."  **(6)**

The 1926 Convention's definition of slavery was broadened to include **forced or compulsory labor** in 1930 in the[ILO Convention (No. 29) concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour](http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/slaveryen.pdf) (article 2.1):  
"...all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily." (7)

Slavery includes: (8)

**_Forced Labour: any work or services which people are forced to do against their will under the threat of some form punishment._ **

_Debt bondage:_ the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;

 _Serfdom_ : the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;

 _Bonded labor:_ Another form of debt bondage, it often starts with the worker agreeing to provide labor in exchange for a loan, but quickly develops into bondage as the employer adds more and more "debt" to the bargain.

 _People trafficking:_ Individuals are forced or tricked into going somewhere by someone who will profit from selling them or forcing them to work against their will, most often in sexual trades. Many countries are both "origins" and "destinations" for victims.

 _Child Slavery:_ Any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour.

 _Abuse of domestic workers:_ Maids and other domestic servants are sold to their employers or bonded to them by debts.

 _Prison labor:_ The contracting out of prison labor or forcing of prisoners to work for profit-making enterprises.

 _Compulsory work:_ People are required by law to work on public construction projects such as roads and bridges.

They have also defined torture, both mental and physical as (emphasis added):

The term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or **intimidating or coercing him or a third person** , or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, **when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.** It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. (7)

By these real world definitions Khan was Marcus’ and Section 31’s slave and was tortured by them. Now according to the Star Trek Wiki Section 31 was not accountable to anyone and had granted itself the power of judge, jury and executioner. (8) In addition, in this reboot universe the head of Star Fleet was also the head of Section 31. So who could Khan turn to for help? Who could he go to and accuse the Head of Star Fleet, the second most powerful and respected man in the entire Federation and accuse him of slavery, torture and at the very least attempted murder and genocide?

So Khan doesn’t fit the definition of either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. But he was most certainly enslaved and tortured by the organization charged with the defense of this new Federation he found himself in.

The question that must be asked here is, “Is a rebellious slave a murderer?” If one does an online search an interesting pattern quickly emerges. Up until the mid-1800s slavery was universal on this planet in one form or another and in every single country where slavery was legal the resound answer to that question was “Yes!” It was not only held to be murder, but also just about every other charge that could be thrown at them. It is only after slavery started to become banned that things began to change. The two notable examples from history are Amistad in 1839 in America (9) and the Creole Slave Revolt in 1841 in the Bahamas (10). In both cases the slaves were found to be acting in self-defence. But can this be truly said in Khan’s case? Perhaps in the case of the first two attacks, given that Section 31 and Marcus were hunting him. Any good self-defence lawyer (if Khan had access to one) would probably argue so.

Unfortunately I don’t think that can be said for his final attack on Star Fleet headquarters simply due to the fact that so many people died who hadn’t done him any harm. Granted he wasn’t aiming for the civilian population and while I’m not a lawyer, it is to my understanding that the difference between manslaughter and murder is intent. Khan was intent on killing all the Star Fleet personnel he could and since he obviously intended to die in the attempt so the argument of self-defense cannot be made. In regards to all the Star Fleet personnel who died, yes I would say its murder. In regards to the many civilians who died . . . well, I have read in other metas that this might qualify as massive counts of vehicular manslaughter. To be honest, it is too close to the wire for me to come down on one side or the other.

This much I will say for certain. There are so many mitigating circumstances around Khan’s actions that to call him a terrorist and to completely ignore the slavery and torment that drove him to such actions is to simultaneously ignore the fact that those actions of Marcus and Section 31 completely betrayed everything they claim the Federation and Star Fleet are supposed to stand for.

I will close this Meta by asking a question. As violent, destructive and in many cases wrong as Khan’s actions may have been, can anyone reading this honestly say that had they been in his position and suffered what he did, would anyone have done anything differently? After all, is there anything you would not do for your family?

 

Sources:

  1. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Terrorism
  2. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-terrorism-act-2006 
  3. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
  4. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starfleet
  5. <http://botanycameos.tumblr.com/tagged/my-meta>
  6. <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/SlaveryConvention.aspx>
  7. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/slaveryen.pdf
  8. <http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx>
  9. <http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm>
  10. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Section_31
  11. http://www.historynet.com/slave-mutiny-on-the-amistad.htm
  12. http://newsone.com/2762407/the-creole-slave-revolt-1841/ 



 

 

**Author's Note:**

> You can now follow me on tumblr at http://www.khantoelessar.tumblr.com/


End file.
